You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > CPFC - The Finances
November 24 2024 7.24am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

CPFC - The Finances

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

  

bexleydave Flag Barnehurst 19 Jul 18 11.24am Send a Private Message to bexleydave Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add bexleydave as a friend

Originally posted by orpingtoneagle

Thinking off the hefty rents and things like service charges paid across the grouped and associated corporate and other structures.

As someone else commented do we really need to maintain offices in Soho? I don't see other clubs feeling the need.

Apparently the owners think we do.

 


Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
bexleydave Flag Barnehurst 19 Jul 18 11.31am Send a Private Message to bexleydave Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add bexleydave as a friend

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle


I'm not so sure. Whilst I agree that ownership is obscured I'm not so sure that the shareholders are using the opaque structure to take money out of the club as even Parish's hefty bonus was stated to have been re-invested back into the club.

There was obviously a good reason why Parish's bonus was paid to him and subsequently re-invested after a hefty sum was paid to HMRC but unfortunately we don't know what that reason is and I can't even hazard a guess unless it was an attempt to retain parity of investment with the Americans


I've seen it suggested that this was a contractual bonus for completing the US investment deal. That does seem plausible, but I've no idea of its voracity. I certainly wouldn't describe the note of it being reinvested as "defensive", more factual.

 


Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Palace in the Blood Flag 19 Jul 18 11.41am Send a Private Message to Palace in the Blood Add Palace in the Blood as a friend

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
I'm not so sure. Whilst I agree that ownership is obscured I'm not so sure that the shareholders are using the opaque structure to take money out of the club as even Parish's hefty bonus was stated to have been re-invested back into the club.

There was obviously a good reason why Parish's bonus was paid to him and subsequently re-invested after a hefty sum was paid to HMRC but unfortunately we don't know what that reason is and I can't even hazard a guess unless it was an attempt to retain parity of investment with the Americans

I am fairly sure it was a way of reducing the overall tax bill for the football club. The rent on the office is an operating cost and bonus will be tax deductable. SP will have had to have paid tax on his bonus but will have been given a tax credit for the investment. Smoke and Mirrors is a seperate legal entity so its tax and financial affairs are seperate. Without looking at it filed documents you can never be sure but it is possible it makes loans to club at a preferential rate.

Before certain posters who lack the professional expertise say this is a guess. These are legal means as are those I suggested were possible in contract law in another thread.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
davehuggins Flag 19 Jul 18 11.50am Send a Private Message to davehuggins Add davehuggins as a friend

Think these accounts go to prove why Cabaye and Sakho have gone. It's pretty clear we cannot go on paying these high wages unless we get more investment in the playing side of the club. All in all the accounts look impressive if you think back a few years. Here's praying for a good season with far less stress than the last couple!!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Spiderman Flag Horsham 19 Jul 18 11.56am Send a Private Message to Spiderman Add Spiderman as a friend

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

I've watched it twice now and I think that his points are well made and the analysis is fairly accurate.

He doesn't really give any strong opinions but occasionally wonders out loud such things as why Parish's company Smoke and Mirrors Ltd tripled the rent payable by CPFC which is something that dyed in the wool Palace fans have also wondered about.

My only complaint (and it is very minor) is that some of the analysis is rather technical and I would have liked the narrator to speak a bit slower to allow me time to digest the information before moving on to the next point

Totally agree with you ME. By the way I was aware he is a Brighton fan and was, actually, surprised that it was not critical of the club and its finances

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 19 Jul 18 12.11pm Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle


I'm not so sure. Whilst I agree that ownership is obscured I'm not so sure that the shareholders are using the opaque structure to take money out of the club as even Parish's hefty bonus was stated to have been re-invested back into the club.

There was obviously a good reason why Parish's bonus was paid to him and subsequently re-invested after a hefty sum was paid to HMRC but unfortunately we don't know what that reason is and I can't even hazard a guess unless it was an attempt to retain parity of investment with the Americans

Yes I’m not falling into those little tarts’ trap of beating Parish over earnings which has been agreed but ‘Smoke And Mirrors’ is definitely a lack of judgement.

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 19 Jul 18 12.29pm Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Originally posted by davehuggins

Think these accounts go to prove why Cabaye and Sakho have gone. It's pretty clear we cannot go on paying these high wages unless we get more investment in the playing side of the club. All in all the accounts look impressive if you think back a few years. Here's praying for a good season with far less stress than the last couple!!

Sakho’s gone? (Joke)

We have to get a central mid though, and if we don’t then Dougie job half done won’t have done his job.

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Midlands Eagle Flag 19 Jul 18 1.10pm Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle Add Midlands Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Palace in the Blood

I am fairly sure it was a way of reducing the overall tax bill for the football club. The rent on the office is an operating cost and bonus will be tax deductable. SP will have had to have paid tax on his bonus but will have been given a tax credit for the investment.

Before certain posters who lack the professional expertise say this is a guess. These are legal means as are those I suggested were possible in contract law in another thread.

Despite being one of the posters who you think lack the professional expertise to comment on your posts I am intrigued to know what this tax credit for his investment is all about as I think that it is more of your guesswork.

Incidentally you are correct that paying SP his bonus will have saved the club Corporation Tax but the CT rate is only 20% whereas SP will have had to pay income tax at 45% on the bonus so the transaction doesn't make any financial sense

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
TheBigToePunt Flag 19 Jul 18 1.18pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

What an interesting video, thanks for posting it.

All seems to add up to what a lot of us felt, and what SP has been saying: We have paid the going rate to build a genuine premier league team (as opposed to some journeymen who got lucky for a year) and as a result are having the longest day in the sun in CPFC's 113 year history. No small thing that, especially given the shocking state of the club when SP and co took it on.

To achieve this however, we have all but maxed out on wages and transfers, and now something has to give. Best routes seem to be:

1. Increase incoming revenue through commercial stuff (done, and done well according to the video).

2. Increase incoming revenue through stadium expansion (doing, and so far looking very good).

3. Sell players as well, or better, than we buy them (so far only Bolasie has gone for big bucks whilst in his prime - perhaps accept bids for Townsend or PVA, guys we'd like to keep but could improve upon or replace in-house?).

4. (And to me this is the big one) Get full value from the existing investments. Benteke, Cabeye, Sakho and Townsend are exactly the type of minimal upgrade on the promotion players that cost significantly higher wages. All have class and ability but have ranged from good to OK to disappointing in performance level in return for that massive outlay. Compare this to Zaha, Luka and even now Wan-Bissaka, who have performed excellently and fully earned their wages, including increases.

Getting performances is tricky of course, these are human beings susceptible to loss of confidence and form no matter what money they are on, but we’ve put our eggs in these baskets and have to make the best of it.

5. Have a cheaper squad. The academy is there for a reason. It’s highly unlikely that the likes of Kirby, Lokilo, Dreher or O’Dwyer would be an instant upgrade on Townsend, Kelly, Sorloth or Schlupp, but they might not be very much worse, might ultimately be as good or better, and would certainly be cheaper. Roy favours experience and seniority, but if the club deliberately leave gaps in the squad for the youngsters then he will have to work with them.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (19 Jul 2018 1.20pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Mapletree Flag Croydon 19 Jul 18 1.30pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

Despite being one of the posters who you think lack the professional expertise to comment on your posts I am intrigued to know what this tax credit for his investment is all about as I think that it is more of your guesswork.

Incidentally you are correct that paying SP his bonus will have saved the club Corporation Tax but the CT rate is only 20% whereas SP will have had to pay income tax at 45% on the bonus so the transaction doesn't make any financial sense

In addition employer's NIC of 13.8% and employee's NIC of 2%

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
bexleydave Flag Barnehurst 19 Jul 18 1.36pm Send a Private Message to bexleydave Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add bexleydave as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

5. Have a cheaper squad. The academy is there for a reason. It’s highly unlikely that the likes of Kirby, Lokilo, Dreher or O’Dwyer would be an instant upgrade on Townsend, Kelly, Sorloth or Schlupp, but they might not be very much worse, might ultimately be as good or better, and would certainly be cheaper. Roy favours experience and seniority, but if the club deliberately leave gaps in the squad for the youngsters then he will have to work with them.


Or he may just walk. I know that's never happened before, but.....

 


Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
bexleydave Flag Barnehurst 19 Jul 18 3.12pm Send a Private Message to bexleydave Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add bexleydave as a friend

A new stand at Palace won’t necessarily solve the problem. They will have to ensure that many of the extra seats go to hospitality customers.

If 10,000 extra seats are sold to regular fans at (say) £500 a pop (and remember West Ham have theirs starting at £299) then this works out at £4.2 million a year in extra income after deducting VAT.

The estimated costs of the expansion are £75-£100 million. Even at the lower threshold, borrowing this at 5% pa works out at £3.75m a year in interest costs. If it’s £100m then £5m a year.

[Link]

This is why you should take every word that Brighton's Kieran Maguire/El Presidente (the author of the apparently much admired commentaries on Palace's finances) has to say with a very large pinch of salt. Nowhere has it ever been suggested that we are borrowing £75m-£100m for the new stand and I can guarantee that we won't be selling season tickets for it at "£500 a pop" in the 2020/21 season.

 


Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 2 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > CPFC - The Finances